Is free public transport costing us more than we think?

From the outside, Luxembourg’s decision to offer free public transport appears like a progressive, and enviable decision. The Grand Duchy has received international praise for being the first country in the world to almost completely scrap fares, making buses, trains, and trams accessible to all. For the most part, I agree that it has been a positive move – especially the impact it has had on individuals and families with limited means.

At its inception, it seemed a win for the environment – a boost for low-income households – and a modern answer to urban mobility challenges. However, five years on – with declining health due to lower activity levels, city hubs overburdened by non-contributing visitors, and frequent overcrowding on journeys – is it time we paused to reflect on the broader impact of this wonderful resource, and consider tweaking – or even reimagining – our relationship with free transport?

Rise of the one-stoppers

If you venture through the city, you might notice a trend: healthy adults and teenagers hopping on and off transport for the convenience of it. To this observer, there has been a dramatic rise in short, often unnecessary journeys – an unintended consequence of a system that asks for nothing in return. Perfectly robust individuals who might have once walked or cycled now default to public transport – not out of necessity, but simply because it is available and it’s free. 

Overcrowding on transport is a frequent issue, and as a card-carrying agoraphobe, I do not welcome any situation that requires me to grasp onto a handrail while bosom-close to anybody; never mind the malodorous Axe-wielding basketballer. My personal aversion to overcrowding aside, all those extra bodies being hauled instead of being self-propelled cannot be as beneficial to the environment, or the person, as walking; furthermore, crowded transport is an uncomfortable experience for everybody, but especially parents with prams, or individuals with mobility issues – those who need space and seats the most.

We should be moving more, but not by bus

There is also a very real consequence of trading physical activity for convenience to public health. According to the World Health Organisation, over a third of adults do not participate in enough physical activity. The sizeable economic impact of diseases impacted by sedentary habits – diabetes, cancers, and heart disease – pale when compared to the human tragedy of an individual losing their quality of life, or life itself.

Would foregoing two-stop trips and walking an extra mile or two a day save lives? Many doctors argue it would.

Cycling is a good alternative to the bus, or is it?

For slightly longer journeys, cycling has always been a popular and healthy choice for those who do not wish to take public transport. However, have deteriorating relationships between drivers and cyclists – both with road safety concerns – made many swap the saddle to become  bus-hoppers? This is a concern I have heard from numerous residents in Luxembourg City.

Personally, I have lost count of how often my earthly presence has come close to vanishing on a vélo, which begs the question: could some of the transport budget in Luxembourg be redirected towards improving the cycling network and educating road users and enforcing road safety rules for both parties. I do not mean more snot-covered vélos, but a safer, more enjoyable, cycling experience overall – for all road users.

The ghastly Gare

The central train station – the key gateway for commuters and travellers in the country – has arguably, as a consequence of free transport, become a magnet for miscreants and ne’er-do-gooders. And let’s get this straight, I am not solely talking about our friends from abroad. Only yesterday, I sat next to a young Luxembourgish gentleman on the number 13, who openly, and without fear of reprisals, boasted about how much cocaine he was going to sell at the Gare that day – because it is "where everybody goes" (for free). The Gare has evolved into a market square for all brands of mischief. Keng käschten rides make the station a convenient hangout spot for idle troublemakers from a wider catchment area – many residents of the area will attest.

Letter from a resident: We need to act sooner rather than later to save Gare

Admittedly, some disagree, including this RTL Today reader, who correctly identifies that crime was already on the rise before the introduction of free transport. However, one could bat the facts back and argue that facilitating the free transportation and centralisation of an undesirable trend is arguably not the best strategy. For example, if someone has a problem with alcohol, you probably shouldn’t drive them – along with everyone else who has the same problem – to the biggest pub in town for free.

Tumbleweed in Tandel: Transport to the sticks is sub-par

While buses and trains trundle endlessly in the capital, the story is quite different if you dare to venture further afield. Many communities outside Luxembourg City remain semi-abandoned with infrequent services that continue to experience consistent delays, ensuring that anybody who desires any form of social life – or simply wants to buy groceries – requires their own car.

Surely to minimise the environmental impact of commuting, we would want to reduce car ownership and usage.

If you have ever visited Vianden (the local castle being one of Luxembourg's most famous attractions) from Luxembourg City, you will have undoubtedly asked yourself why it takes tediously long to travel a short distance. On the three occasions I have been, the train was delayed by more than half an hour twice – adding to the frustration. If I lived there, I would want a car.

Although it is not a mutually exclusive argument, selectively-less-free transport could unbind resources to bolster investment in expanding routes or increasing service frequency to the wider population – instead of most resources being funnelled into maintaining a system overloaded with short-trips or idle users who crowd the network without contributing in any meaningful sense.

We know the cost, but not the value

In principle, free transport is a noble idea. But just because something is free, does not mean it is without a cost, in this case, a cost to our health, personal space, and sense of security at the heart of the city – all things that we should value.

There are no easy answers. But the imbalance in Luxembourg’s relationship with free public transport – and the way it is implemented – remains an issue. The answers could lie in a more selective engagement with the system, re-educating and educating the public on responsible transport use, the benefits of taking regular walks, or road safety/enforcement – for both motorists and cyclists alike.

Whatever the answer, I genuinely enjoy not having to pay for my journeys, and I deeply respect the benefit this brings to countless thousands. Yet I remain sceptical, perhaps in the way Oscar Wilde might have been – because while some may know the cost of this remarkable service, they do not grasp its value and the consequences of irresponsible use.

As we surpass five years of limitless travel, Luxembourg's long-term relationship with free transport is something I expect will come under greater scrutiny, especially while the issues above remain unaddressed, or recognised by decision makers.